Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Triggaaar]

Herd immunity is effectively taking place whatever your strategy because it is a natural thing.

It isn't really in the short term, because for herd immunity to have a noticeable affect on reducing the number of infections you need a large percentage of people to be immune. We're not going to get that large percentage in the next few months, unless we have an unimaginably grim death toll. Having say 1 million people infected and recovered in the next few months would see a lot of people die, but would still provide less than 2% of people immune to the virus, so it wouldn't stop it spreading.

So it isn’t anyone’s approach

But your post quoted a claim that it was the UK's approach. Our government say it isn't, and regardless of it being a natural thing, it's not going to happen and be successful.

but it will have an effect one way or another depending on the approach i.e. some approaches may mean immunity is reached further down the line that enables a quicker return to normality. If you go full Wuhan lock down, you face the situation of a month of severe restrictions, then what...only 50k of 11m are now immune and if you lift restrictions likely the epidemic will grow again.

It's possible that the best solution will to be to restrict contact (restrict, not full lockdown) for the whole year (until a vaccine is available), unless the weather can help. But allowing the population to contract the virus, in some misguided idea that we'll get herd immunity, will not be a success story.

 

[abc]

The stats as we know it suggest you have a 1 in 5 chance of living if you get it over 70. Sorry if this sounds insensitive.

Not so much as insensitive as a total load of rubbish but hey, who gives a stuff about facts, reason and perspective at a time of national and global challenge?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

May I remind people that China has a death toll of 3100 from 1.5 Billion. That is 1 in every 48000 people

 

[Bold Seagull]

It isn't really in the short term, because for herd immunity to have a noticeable affect on reducing the number of infections you need a large percentage of people to be immune. We're not going to get that large percentage in the next few months, unless we have an unimaginably grim death toll. Having say 1 million people infected and recovered in the next few months would see a lot of people die, but would still provide less than 2% of people immune to the virus, so it wouldn't stop it spreading.

But your post quoted a claim that it was the UK's approach. Our government say it isn't, and regardless of it being a natural thing, it's not going to happen and be successful.

It's possible that the best solution will to be to restrict contact (restrict, not full lockdown) for the whole year (until a vaccine is available), unless the weather can help. But allowing the population to contract the virus, in some misguided idea that we'll get herd immunity, will not be a success story.

Never said it was short term. My post was a quote from the BBC which said that it was the French who were calling the UK the herd immunity approach. I think that is a mistake to call it that. So don’t disagree with you on the whole.

 

[bluenitsuj]

May I remind people that China has a death toll of 3100 from 1.5 Billion. That is 1 in every 48000 people

If you believe those stats

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

May I remind people that China has a death toll of 3100 from 1.5 Billion. That is 1 in every 48000 people

Think you missed a 0 off there!

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Think you missed a 0 off there!

yes 1 in 480 000 then. chance of death if infected 1 in 25, 4% but should be lower here 1 in 100, 1%

 

[Wozza]

 

[Ernest]

Germany closing their borders now , we are so out of step it’s crazy

 

[dwayne]

1 in 5 chance of living ? You got that totally wrong. You are saying anyone that is 70 and over who get it has an 80% chance of dying ? Nonsense

1 in 5 chance of dying.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

1 in 5 chance of dying.

You said 1 in 5 chance of living and even then this is much too high. Where is the evidence for 1 in 5 ?

 

[Solid at the back]

yes 1 in 480 000 then. chance of death if infected 1 in 25, 4% but should be lower here 1 in 100, 1%

We will have a higher death rate then China, much higher. Italy will over take them in a few days too, they've added nearly another 400 deaths today. They are running at around 7% death rate. But if you just do sums on the cases that have ended and have an outcome, they are at 43% death rate. Only 2335 have recovered. Eye watering figures.

 

[Triggaaar]

Never said it was short term.

I know.

My post was a quote from the BBC which said that it was the French who were calling the UK the herd immunity approach.

I know.

I think that is a mistake to call it that. So don’t disagree with you on the whole.

Excellent.

 

[rogersix]

We will have a higher death rate then China, much higher. Italy will over take them in a few days too, they've added nearly another 400 deaths today. They are running at around 7% death rate. But if you just do sums on the cases that have ended and have an outcome, they are at 43% death rate. Only 2335 have recovered. Eye watering figures.

368, why type 400?

 

[Triggaaar]

May I remind people that China has a death toll of 3100 from 1.5 Billion. That is 1 in every 48000 people

So you're point is that it's not very deadly? I disagree. Italy, with a smaller population than the UK, could have a higher death toll than China within a week.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

So you're point is that it's not very deadly? I disagree. Italy, with a smaller population than the UK, could have a higher death toll than China within a week.

Older population

 

[Triggaaar]

Older population

There are still a lot more old people in China that Italy. Using the Chinese figures to try and argue that the virus isn't too deadly is daft or disingenuous. They've quarantined the whole country, and that can't last. And we're not doing that here.

 

[Hugo Rune]

View attachment 121034

Italy also have 1,672 people seriously ill. Many of those will die over the next day or so. Their mortality rate could shift to 10% of those tested. It seems to be hitting them a lot harder than Japan who whilst having an older population, have managed the spread a lot better by acting early and effectively.

 

[Nixonator]

We will have a higher death rate then China, much higher. Italy will over take them in a few days too, they've added nearly another 400 deaths today. They are running at around 7% death rate. But if you just do sums on the cases that have ended and have an outcome, they are at 43% death rate. Only 2335 have recovered. Eye watering figures.

Why would you want to do those 'sums'? It means absolutely nothing.

 

[Solid at the back]

Why would you want to do those 'sums'? It means absolutely nothing.

Ofcourse it does. It means exactly what I've just said, that of cases that have had an outcome 43% have died.